UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7429
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
FREDERICK J. SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00032-REP-1; 3:11-cv-00446-REP)
Submitted: February 19, 2015 Decided: March 10, 2015
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederick J. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Arlen Jagels,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Stephen Wiley Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frederick J. Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate
of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court
denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must
demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is
debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3